Preparing for future pandemics: frailty associates with mortality in hospitalised older people during the entire COVID-19 pandemic, a Dutch multicentre cohort study.

PURPOSE: Viral mutations and improved prevention or treatment options may have changed the association of frailty with mortality throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. We investigated how associations of frailty with in-hospital mortality changed throughout the pandemic in older people hospitalised for COVID-19. METHODS: The COVID-OLD study included COVID-19 patients aged ≥ 70 years hospitalised during the first (early 2020), second (late 2020), third (late 2021) or fourth wave (early 2022). Based on the clinical frailty scale, patients were categorised as fit (1-3), pre-frail (4-5) or frail (6-9). Associations of frailty with in-hospital mortality were assessed with pairwise comparisons with fit as reference category and modelled using binary logistic regression adjusted for age and sex. RESULTS: This study included 2362 patients (mean age 79.7 years, 60% men). In the first wave, in-hospital mortality was 46% in patients with frailty and 27% in fit patients. In-hospital mortality decreased in each subsequent wave to 25% in patients with frailty and 11% in fit patients in the fourth wave. After adjustments, an overall higher risk of in-hospital mortality was found in frail (OR 2.26, 95% CI: 1.66-3.07) and pre-frail (OR 1.73, 95% CI: 1.27-2.35) patients compared to fit patients, which did not change over time (p for interaction = 0.74). CONCLUSIONS: Frailty remained associated with a higher risk of in-hospital mortality throughout the entire COVID-19 pandemic, although overall in-hospital mortality rates decreased. Frailty therefore remains a relevant risk factor in all stages of a pandemic and is important to consider in prevention and treatment guidelines for future pandemics.

Older people's goals of care in relation to frailty status-the COOP-study.

BACKGROUND: Literature relating older people's goals of care to their varying frailty status is scarce. OBJECTIVE: To investigate goals of care in case of acute and/or severe disease in relationship to frailty status among the general older population. METHOD: Older people aged ≥70 in the Netherlands completed a questionnaire. They were divided into three subgroups based on a self-reported Clinical Frailty Scale: fit (CFS 1-3), mildly frail (CFS 4-5) and severely frail (CFS 6-8). Seven goals were graded as unimportant (1-5), somewhat important (6-7) or very important (8-10): extending life, preserving quality of life (QoL), staying independent, relieving symptoms, supporting others, preventing hospital admission and preventing nursing home admission. RESULTS: Of the 1,278 participants (median age 76 years, 63% female), 57% was fit, 32% mildly frail and 12% severely frail. Overall, participants most frequently considered preventing nursing home admission as very important (87%), followed by staying independent (84%) and preserving QoL (83%), and least frequently considered extending life as very important (31%). All frailty subgroups reported similar preferences out of the surveyed goals as the overall study population. However, participants with a higher frailty status attached slightly less importance to each individual goal compared with fit participants (Ptrend-values ≤ 0.037). CONCLUSION: Preferred goals of care are not related to frailty status, while the importance ascribed to individual goals is slightly lower with higher frailty status. Future research should prioritise outcomes related to the shared goals of fit, mildly frail and severely frail older people to improve personalised medicine for older patients.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Positive Health among older adults in relation to the complexity of health problems.

BACKGROUND: The broad concept of health as "the ability to adapt and self-manage in the face of social, physical and emotional challenges" has been operationalized by "Positive Health," a framework increasingly used in the Netherlands. We explored to what degree the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and preventive measures on Positive Health differed between community-dwelling older adults without, with mild and with complex health problems, as well as differences flowing from their use of preventive measures. METHODS: During the second wave in the Netherlands (November 2020-February 2021), a convenience sample of adults aged ≥65 years completed an online questionnaire. Positive Health impact was measured based on self-reported change of current health status, across six dimensions, compared to before the pandemic (decreased/unchanged/increased). The complexity of health problems (past month) was assessed using the validated ISCOPE tool, comparing subgroups without, with mild or with complex health problems. High use of preventive measures was defined as ≥9 of 13 measures and compared to low use (<9 measures). RESULTS: Of the 2397 participants (median age 71 years, 60% female, and 4% previous COVID-19 infection), 31% experienced no health problems, 55% mild health problems, and 15% complex health problems. Overall, participants reported a median decrease in one Positive Health dimension (IQR 1-3), most commonly in social participation (68%). With an increasing complexity of health problems, subjective Positive Health declined more often across all six dimensions, ranging from 3.3% to 57% in those without, from 22% to 72% in those with mild, and from 47% to 75% in those with complex health problems (p-values for trend <0.001; independent of age and sex). High users of preventive measures more often experienced declined social participation (72% vs. 62%, p < 0.001) and a declined quality of life (36% vs. 30%, p = 0.007) than low users, especially those with complex health problems. CONCLUSION: As the complexity of health problems increased, the adverse impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and related preventive measures was experienced more frequently across all dimensions of Positive Health. Acknowledging this heterogeneity is pivotal to the effective targeting of prevention and healthcare to those most in need.

The Role of a Composite Fitness Score in the Association Between Low-Density Cholesterol and All-Cause Mortality in Older Adults: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: In the general population, an increase in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) predicts higher cardiovascular disease risk, and lowering LDL-C can prevent cardiovascular disease and reduces mortality risk. Interestingly, in cohort studies that include very old populations, no or inverse associations between LDL-C and mortality have been observed. This study aims to investigate whether the association between LDL-C and mortality in the very old is modified by a composite fitness score. METHODS: A 2-stage meta-analysis of individual participant data from the 5 observational cohort studies. The composite fitness score was operationalized by performance on a combination of 4 markers: functional ability, cognitive function, grip strength, and morbidity. We pooled hazard ratios (HR) from Cox proportional-hazards models for 5-year mortality risk for a 1 mmol/L increase in LDL-C. Models were stratified by high/low composite fitness score. RESULTS: Composite fitness scores were calculated for 2 317 participants (median 85 years, 60% females participants), of which 994 (42.9%) had a high composite fitness score, and 694 (30.0%) had a low-composite fitness score. There was an inverse association between LDL-C and 5-year mortality risk (HR 0.87 [95% CI: 0.80-0.94]; p < .01), most pronounced in participants with a low-composite fitness score (HR 0.85 [95% CI: 0.75-0.96]; p = .01), compared to those with a high composite fitness score (HR = 0.98 [95% CI: 0.83-1.15]; p = .78), the test for subgroups differences was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: In this very old population, there was an inverse association between LDL-C and all-cause mortality, which was most pronounced in participants with a low-composite fitness scores.

Cardiovascular risk factors and major recurrent coronary events: A genetic liability study in patients with coronary artery disease in the UK Biobank.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Mendelian randomization confirmed multiple risk factors for primary events of coronary artery disease (CAD), but no such studies have been performed on recurrent major coronary events despite interesting insights derived from other designs. We examined the associations between genetically-influenced classical cardiovascular risk factors and the risk of recurrent major coronary events in a cohort of CAD patients. METHODS: We included all first-time CAD cases (defined as angina pectoris, chronic ischemic heart disease or acute myocardial infarction) of European ancestry from the UK Biobank. Cases were followed till the end of follow-up, death or when they developed a recurrent major coronary event (chronic ischemic heart disease or acute myocardial infarction). Standardized weighted genetic risk scores were calculated for body mass index (BMI), systolic blood pressure, LDL cholesterol and triglycerides. RESULTS: From a total of 22,949 CAD patients (mean age at first diagnosis 59.8 (SD 7.3) years, 71.1% men), 12,539 (54.6%) reported a recurrent major coronary event within a period of maximum 17.8 years. One standard deviation higher genetically-determined LDL cholesterol was associated with a higher risk of a recurrent major coronary event (odds ratio: 1.08 [95% confidence interval: 1.05, 1.11]). No associations were observed for genetically-influenced BMI (1.00 [0.98, 1.03]), systolic blood pressure (1.01 [0.98, 1.03]) and triglycerides (1.02 [0.995, 1.05]). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the use risk-reducing medications following a first coronary event, this study provided genetic evidence that, of the classical risk factors, mainly high LDL cholesterol was associated with a higher risk of developing recurrent major coronary events.

Self-perceived functioning and (instrumental) activities of daily living questionnaires after a hip fracture: Do they tell the same story?

BACKGROUND: (Instrumental) activities of daily living ((I)ADL) questionnaires are often used as a measure of functioning for different purposes. Depending on the purpose, a measurement of functioning that includes subjective patient perspectives can be relevant. However, it is unclear to what extent (I)ADL instruments capture self-perceived functioning. OBJECTIVE: Explore what functioning means to older persons after a hip fracture and assess the extent to which (I)ADL instruments align with self-perceived functioning. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study with framework analysis. SETTING: Prospective cohort study on recovery after a hip fracture among older persons in a hospital in a large city in the west of the Netherlands. SUBJECTS: Eighteen home-dwelling older persons (≥70 years) who had a hip fracture 6-12 months ago. METHODS: Telephone interviews about functioning before and after the hip fracture were coded and analysed using the framework method. RESULTS: The activities mentioned by participants to be part of their self-perceived functioning could be split into activities necessary to maintain the desired level of independence, and more personal activities that were of value to participants. Both the 'independence activities' and the 'valued activities' mentioned went beyond the activities included in (I)ADL questionnaires. Due to various coping strategies, limitations in activities that are measured in the (I)ADL questionnaires did not necessarily lead to worse self-perceived functioning. CONCLUSION: Self-perceived functioning differs from functioning measured with (I)ADL questionnaires in the items included and the weighing of limitations in activities. Thus, (I)ADL instruments alone are not enough to measure functioning from the perspective of the older person.

Assessment of the appropriateness of cardiovascular preventive medication in older people: using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

BACKGROUND: In clinical practice and science, there is debate for which older adults the benefits of cardiovascular preventive medications (CPM) still outweigh the risks in older age. Therefore, we aimed to assess how various clinical characteristics influence the judgement of appropriateness of CPM in older adults. METHOD: We assessed the appropriateness of CPM for adults ≥75 years with regard to clinical characteristics (cardiovascular variables, complexity of health problems, age, side effects and life expectancy) using the RAND/ University of California at Los Angeles Appropriateness Method. A multidisciplinary panel, including 11 medical professionals and 3 older representatives of the target population, received an up-to-date overview of the literature. Using 9-point Likert scales (1 = extremely inappropriate; 9 = extremely appropriate), they assessed the appropriateness of starting and stopping cholesterol lowering medication, antihypertensives and platelet aggregation inhibitors, for various theoretical clinical scenarios. There were two rating rounds, with one face-to-face discussion in between. The overall appropriateness judgments were based on the median panel ratings of the second round and level of disagreement. RESULTS: The panelists emphasized the importance of the individual context of the patient for appropriateness of CPM. They judged that in general, a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease strongly adds to the appropriateness of CPM, while increasing complexity of health problems, presence of hindering or severe side effects, and life expectancy < 1 year all contribute to the inappropriateness of CPM. Age had only minor influence on the appropriateness judgments. The appropriateness judgments were different for the three types of CPM. The literature, time-to-benefit, remaining life expectancy, number needed to treat, and quality of life, were major themes in the panel discussions. The considerations to stop CPM were different from the considerations not to start CPM. CONCLUSION: Next to the patients' individual context, which was considered decisive in the final decision to start or stop CPM, there were general trends of how clinical characteristics influenced the appropriateness, according to the multidisciplinary panel. The decision to stop, and not start CPM, appeared to be two distinct concepts. Results of this study may be used in efforts to support clinical decision making about CPM in older adults.

Do we AGREE on the targets of antihypertensive drug treatment in older adults: a systematic review of guidelines on primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases.

BACKGROUND: translation of the available evidence concerning primary cardiovascular prevention into clinical guidance for the heterogeneous population of older adults is challenging. With this review, we aimed to give an overview of the thresholds and targets of antihypertensive drug therapy for older adults in currently used guidelines on primary cardiovascular prevention. Secondly, we evaluated the relationship between the advised targets and guideline characteristics, including guideline quality. METHODS: we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Emcare and five guideline databases. We selected guidelines with (i) numerical thresholds for the initiation or target values of antihypertensive drug therapy in context of primary prevention (January 2008-July 2020) and (ii) specific advice concerning antihypertensive drug therapy in older adults. We extracted the recommendations and appraised the quality of included guidelines with the AGREE II instrument. RESULTS: thirty-four guidelines provided recommendations concerning antihypertensive drug therapy in older adults. Twenty advised a higher target of systolic blood pressure (SBP) for octogenarians in comparison with the general population and three advised a lower target. Over half of the guidelines (n = 18) recommended to target a SBP <150 mmHg in the oldest old, while four endorsed targets of SBP lower than 130 or 120 mmHg. Although many guidelines acknowledged frailty, only three gave specific thresholds and targets. Guideline characteristics, including methodological quality, were not related with the recommended targets. CONCLUSION: the ongoing debate concerning targets of antihypertensive treatment in older adults, is reflected in an inconsistency of recommendations across guidelines. Recommended targets are largely set on chronological rather than biological age.

Recommendations for (Discontinuation of) Statin Treatment in Older Adults: Review of Guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: As a person's age increases and his/her health status declines, new challenges arise that may lead physicians to consider deprescribing statins. We aimed to provide insight into recommendations available in international cardiovascular disease prevention guidelines regarding discontinuation of statin treatment applicable to older adults. DESIGN: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, EMCARE, and the websites of guideline development organizations and online guideline repositories for cardiovascular disease prevention guidelines aimed at the general population. We selected all guidelines with recommendations (instructions and suggestions) on discontinuation of statin treatment applicable to older adults, published between January 2009 and April 2019. In addition, we performed a synthesis of information from all other recommendations for older adults regarding statin treatment. Methodological quality of the included guidelines was appraised using the appraisal of guidelines for research & evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. RESULTS: Eighteen international guidelines for cardiovascular disease prevention in the general adult population provided recommendations for statin discontinuation that were applicable to older adults. We identified three groups of instructions for statin discontinuation related to statin intolerance, and none was specifically aimed at older adults. Three guidelines also included suggestions to consider statin discontinuation in patients with poor health status. Of the 18 guidelines included, 16 made recommendations regarding statin treatment in older adults, although details on how to implement these recommendations in practice were not provided. CONCLUSION: Current international cardiovascular disease prevention guidelines provide little specific guidance for physicians who are considering statin discontinuation in older adults in the context of declining health status and short life expectancy. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:417-425, 2020.

What is geriatric rehabilitation and how should it be organized? A Delphi study aimed at reaching European consensus.

PURPOSE: Many European countries have developed services to rehabilitate the increasing number of older people who experience an acute or subacute decrease in function after a medical event such as a hip fracture or stroke. However, there are important differences between countries regarding patient selection, organization of services, length of stay, and content of the rehabilitation process. The lack of consensus around, and quality criteria for, geriatric rehabilitation limits opportunities for exchange of best practice and scientific research. METHODS: 33 experts, mostly geriatricians with experience in geriatric rehabilitation, from 18 European countries were invited to participate in a modified Delphi study. They were asked to react to 68 statements using a five-point Likert scale. The statements were formulated on the basis of literature review and practice experience, and were initially piloted among Dutch elderly care physicians. Consensus was defined beforehand as an Interquartile Range (IQR) of

The effectiveness of functional task exercise and physical therapy as prevention of functional decline in community dwelling older people with complex health problems.

BACKGROUND: A physically active lifestyle in older people contributes to the preservation of good health. We assessed the influence of physiotherapy on daily functioning among community dwelling older people (75+) with complex health problems identified with screening, versus usual care. We also compared functional task exercise (FTE), with problems prioritized by older people, trained in the home environment, versus usual preventive physical therapy (PPT). METHODS: Design: FTE and PPT were compared in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Both interventions were compared with daily functioning in an observational study: control group. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling persons aged ≥75 years with daily activity limitations enlisted in 83 general practices (n = 155). INTERVENTIONS: Both intervention groups (FTE, n = 76 and PPT, n = 79) received individual, 30 min treatments. The control group (n = 228) did not get any experimental intervention offered. MEASUREMENTS: Groningen Activities of Daily Living Restriction Scale (GARS). STATISTICAL ANALYSES: Linear Mixed Model analysis, correcting for age, sex, baseline scores and clustering by physiotherapist were used to compare the different groups. RESULTS: At baseline, 74% percent of the intervention trial group was female vs 79% in the control group. Median ages were 83.9 and 84.7 respectively. The median baseline GARS-score for the control group was 41.0 (25 and 75 percentile): 35.0; 48.0) and 40.0 (25 and 75 percentile: 32.3; 46.0) for the intervention group (FTE + PPT). The mean change over time was 3.3 (2.5; 4.1) for the control group. Mean difference in change over time between the intervention (FTE + PPT) and the control group was - 2.5 (- 4.3; - 0.6) (p = .009). Between FTE and PPT the difference in change was - 0.4 (95% CI: -2.3; 3.0, p = 0.795). CONCLUSION: An exercise intervention led by physiotherapists may slow down decline in self-reported daily functioning in older persons with daily activity limitations, identified by pro-active case finding. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands trial register ( NTR2407 ). Registered 6th of July 2010.

Deprescribing preventive cardiovascular medication in patients with predicted low cardiovascular disease risk in general practice - the ECSTATIC study: a cluster randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: The use of cardiovascular medication for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is potentially inappropriate when potential risks outweigh the potential benefits. It is unknown whether deprescribing preventive cardiovascular medication in patients without a strict indication for such medication is safe and cost-effective in general practice. METHODS: In this pragmatic cluster randomised controlled non-inferiority trial, we recruited 46 general practices in the Netherlands. Patients aged 40-70 years who were using antihypertensive and/or lipid-lowering drugs without CVD and with low risk of future CVD were followed for 2 years. The intervention was an attempt to deprescribe preventive cardiovascular medication. The primary outcome was the difference in the increase in predicted (10-year) CVD risk in the per-protocol (PP) population with a non-inferiority margin of 2.5 percentage points. An economic evaluation was performed in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. We used multilevel (generalised) linear regression with multiple imputation of missing data. RESULTS: Of 1067 participants recruited between 7 November 2012 and 18 February 2014, 72% were female. Overall, their mean age was 55 years and their mean predicted CVD risk at baseline was 5%. Of 492 participants in the ITT intervention group, 319 (65%) quit the medication (PP intervention group); 135 (27%) of those participants were still not taking medication after 2 years. The predicted CVD risk increased by 2.0 percentage points in the PP intervention group compared to 1.9 percentage points in the usual care group. The difference of 0.1 (95% CI -0.3 to 0.6) fell within the non-inferiority margin. After 2 years, compared to the usual care group, for the PP intervention group, systolic blood pressure was 6 mmHg higher, diastolic blood pressure was 4 mmHg higher and total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol levels were both 7 mg/dl higher (all P < 0.05). Cost and quality-adjusted life years did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the ECSTATIC study show that an attempt to deprescribe preventive cardiovascular medication in low-CVD-risk patients is safe in the short term when blood pressure and cholesterol levels are monitored after stopping. An attempt to deprescribe medication can be considered, taking patient preferences into consideration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered with Dutch trial register on 20 June 2012 ( NTR3493 ).

Incidental findings in research: A focus group study about the perspective of the research participant.

PURPOSE: To explore the experiences and preferences of population-based research participants to whom an incidental finding was communicated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of the 2580 participants of the Netherlands Epidemiology of Obesity (NEO) study who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanning of the abdomen, heart, and/or brain, an incidental finding with presumed health importance was disclosed to 56 (2%) participants. These participants were invited to discuss their experiences regarding the communication of the finding by the NEO research team in a focus group discussion. Transcripts of the discussions were analyzed using thematic content analysis with an open coding system. RESULTS: Twenty-three persons participated in four discussions: 57% male; mean age 58 years; 74% findings were suspect for a malignancy. Overall, the participants were grateful for the disclosure of the incidental finding. They had assumed that any finding would be disclosed, and this was an important reason to participate in research. None regretted their informed consent to be notified about incidental findings. Disclosure of the finding had great impact on the lives of most participants. Difficulties with the transition from research participant to patient were frequently mentioned. CONCLUSION: This study provides information to improve the communication of incidental findings by 1) giving clear information about which findings will be disclosed, and 2) demarcating the transition from research participant to patient, by making clear arrangements with medical specialists to guarantee careful follow-up of the finding. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 5 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:230-237.

Risk stratification and treatment effect of statins in secondary cardiovascular prevention in old age: Additive value of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide.

BACKGROUND: To date, no validated risk scores exist for prediction of recurrence risk or potential treatment effect for older people with a history of a cardiovascular event. Therefore, we assessed predictive values for recurrent cardiovascular disease of models with age and sex, traditional cardiovascular risk markers, and 'SMART risk score', all with and without addition of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). Treatment effect of pravastatin was assessed across low and high risk groups identified by the best performing models. DESIGN AND METHODS: Post-hoc analysis in 2348 participants (age 70-82 years) with a history of cardiovascular disease within the PROspective Study of Pravastatin in the Elderly at Risk (PROSPER) study. Composite endpoint was a recurrent cardiovascular event/cardiovascular mortality. RESULTS: The models with age and sex, traditional risk markers and SMART risk score had comparable predictive values (area under the curve (AUC) 0.58, 0.61 and 0.59, respectively). Addition of NT-proBNP to these models improved AUCs with 0.07 (p for difference ((pdiff)) = 0.003), 0.05 (pdiff = 0.009) and 0.06 (pdiff < 0.001), respectively. For the model with age, sex and NT-proBNP, the hazard ratio for the composite endpoint in pravastatin users compared with placebo was 0.67 (95% confidence interval 0.49-0.90) for those in the highest third of predicted risk and 0.91 (0.57-1.46) in the lowest third, number needed to treat 12 and 115 (pdiff = 0.038) respectively. CONCLUSION: In secondary cardiovascular prevention in old age addition of NT-proBNP improves prediction of recurrent cardiovascular disease, cardiovascular mortality and treatment effect of pravastatin. A minimal model including age, sex and NT-proBNP predicts as accurately as complex risk models including NT-proBNP.

GPs' perspectives on secondary cardiovascular prevention in older age: a focus group study in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Although guidelines recommend secondary cardiovascular prevention irrespective of age, in older age the uptake of treatment is lower than in younger age groups. AIM: To explore the dilemmas GPs in the Netherlands encounter when implementing guidelines for secondary cardiovascular prevention in older age. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study in four focus groups consisting of GPs (n = 23, from the northern part of the province South Holland) and a fifth focus group consisting of GP trainees (n = 4, from the Leiden University Medical Center). METHOD: Focus group discussions were organised to elicit perspectives on the implementation of secondary cardiovascular prevention for older people. The 14 theoretical domains of the refined Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) were used for (deductive) coding of the focus group discussions. The coded texts were analysed, content was discussed, and barriers and facilitators were identified for each domain of the TDF. RESULTS: The main theme that emerged was 'uncertainty'. Identified barriers were guideline-related, patient-related, and organisation-related. Identified facilitators were doctor-related, patient-related, and organisation-related. The main aim of secondary preventive treatment was improvement in quality of life. CONCLUSION: GPs in the Netherlands are uncertain about many aspects of secondary cardiovascular prevention in older age; the guidelines themselves, their own role, patient factors, and the organisation of care. In view of this uncertainty, GPs consciously weigh all aspects of the situation in close dialogue with the individual patient, with the ultimate aim of improving quality of life. This highly-individualised care may largely explain the reduced prescription rates.

Change in calculated cardiovascular risk due to guideline revision: A cross-sectional study in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines and accompanying risk charts concerning cardiovascular risk management (CVRM) are regularly revised worldwide. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether revision of the Dutch CVRM guideline has led to the reclassification of patients and, accordingly, to changes in drug recommendations. METHODS: All medical records (year 2011) of patients aged 40-65 years with no history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) but using antihypertensive and/or lipid-lowering drugs, were selected from the Registration Network of General Practices associated with Leiden University Medical Center. Multiple imputation techniques for missing determinants were used. The individual cardiovascular risk was calculated and the resulting drug recommendation was assessed according to both the 2006 and 2012 versions of the guideline. RESULTS: In total, 2075 patients were selected, of whom 1248 fulfilled the guideline criteria (systolic blood pressure 115-180 mmHg and total cholesterol/high-density-lipoprotein-cholesterol ratio 3.5-8). According to the 2012 guideline, 58.2% of the patients had low risk and 249 patients (20.0%) shifted to a different risk category. For 150 of these patients (12.0%), this category shift implied a shift in drug recommendation. The probability of shifting in drug recommendation increased with increasing age, cholesterol level, and blood pressure, and by being male. CONCLUSION: Guideline revision may have important implications: based on identical values for risk factors, according to the latest revision of the Dutch CVRM guideline 20% of patients shifted in risk category and 12% of the patients shifted in drug recommendation.

Variability in vulnerability assessment of older people by individual general practitioners: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: In clinical practice, GPs appeared to have an internalized concept of "vulnerability." This study investigates the variability between general practitioners (GPs) in their vulnerability-assessment of older persons. METHODS: Seventy-seven GPs categorized their 75-plus patients (n = 11392) into non-vulnerable, possibly vulnerable, and vulnerable patients. GPs personal and practice characteristics were collected. From a sample of 2828 patients the following domains were recorded: sociodemographic, functional [instrumental activities in daily living (IADL), basic activities in daily living (BADL)], somatic (number of diseases, polypharmacy), psychological (Mini-Mental State Examination, 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale; GDS-15) and social (De Jong-Gierveld Loneliness Scale; DJG). Variability in GPs' assessment of vulnerability was tested with mixed effects logistic regression. P-values for variability (pvar) were calculated by the log-likelihood ratio test. RESULTS: Participating GPs assessed the vulnerability of 10,361 patients. The median percentage of vulnerable patients was 32.0% (IQR 19.5 to 40.1%). From the somatic and psychological domains, GPs uniformly took into account the patient characteristics 'total number of diseases' (OR 1.7, 90% range  = 0, p var = 1), 'polypharmacy' (OR 2.3, 90% range  = 0, p var = 1) and 'GDS-15' (OR 1.6, 90% range  = 0, p var = 1). GPs vary in the way they assessed their patients' vulnerability in the functional domain (IADL: median OR 2.8, 90% range 1.6, p var < 0.001, BADL: median OR 2.4, 90% range 2.9, p var < 0.001) and the social domain (DJG: median OR 1.2, 90% range  = 1.2, p var < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: GPs seem to share a medical concept of vulnerability, since they take somatic and psychological characteristics uniformly into account in the vulnerability-assessment of older persons. In the functional and social domains, however, variability was found. Vulnerability assessment by GPs might be a promising instrument to select older people for geriatric care if more uniformity could be achieved. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NTR1946.

Homocysteine levels and treatment effect in the PROspective Study of Pravastatin in the Elderly at Risk.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of preventive pravastatin treatment on coronary heart disease (CHD) morbidity and mortality in older persons at risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), stratified according to plasma levels of homocysteine. DESIGN: A post hoc subanalysis in the PROspective Study of Pravastatin in the Elderly at Risk (PROSPER), started in 1997, which is a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial with a mean follow-up of 3.2 years. SETTING: Primary care setting in two of the three PROSPER study sites (Netherlands and Scotland). PARTICIPANTS: Individuals (n = 3,522, aged 70-82, 1,765 male) with a history of or risk factors for CVD were ranked in three groups depending on baseline homocysteine level, sex, and study site. INTERVENTION: Pravastatin (40 mg) versus placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Fatal and nonfatal CHD and mortality. RESULTS: In the placebo group, participants with a high homocysteine level (n = 588) had a 1.8 higher risk (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.2-2.5, P = .001) of fatal and nonfatal CHD than those with a low homocysteine level (n = 597). The absolute risk reduction in fatal and nonfatal CHD with pravastatin treatment was 1.6% (95% CI = -1.6 to 4.7%) in the low homocysteine group and 6.7% (95% CI = 2.7-10.7%) in the high homocysteine group (difference 5.2%, 95% CI = 0.11-10.3, P = .046). Therefore, the number needed to treat (NNT) with pravastatin for 3.2 years for benefit related to fatal and nonfatal CHD events was 14.8 (95% CI = 9.3-36.6) for high homocysteine and 64.5 (95% CI = 21.4-∞) for low homocysteine. CONCLUSION: In older persons at risk of CVD, those with high homocysteine are at highest risk for fatal and nonfatal CHD. With pravastatin treatment, this group has the highest absolute risk reduction and the lowest NNT to prevent fatal and nonfatal CHD.

NT-proBNP best predictor of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular mortality in secondary prevention in very old age: the Leiden 85-plus Study.

BACKGROUND: In the aging population cardiovascular disease (CVD) is highly prevalent. Identification of very old persons at high risk of recurrent CVD is difficult, since traditional risk markers loose predictive value with age. METHODS: In a population-based sample of 282 85-year old participants with established CVD from the Leiden 85-plus Study, we studied predictive values of traditional cardiovascular risk markers, a history of major CVD (myocardial infarction, stroke or arterial surgery), and new cardiovascular biomarkers (estimated glomerular filtration rate (MDRD), C-reactive protein (CRP), homocysteine and N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP)) regarding 5-year risk of recurrent cardiovascular events and mortality (composite endpoint). RESULTS: During complete 5-year follow-up 157 (56%) participants died. 109 (39%) had a cardiovascular event or died from cardiovascular causes. Individually related to the composite endpoint were: a history of major CVD (HR 1.5 (95%CI 1.03-2.3)), CRP (HR 1.3 (95%CI 1.03-1.5)), homocysteine (HR 1.4 (95%CI 1.2-2.6)) and NT-proBNP (HR 1.7 (95%CI 1.4-2.1)). A prediction model including all traditional risk markers yielded a C-statistic of 0.59 (95%CI 0.52-0.66). Of all five new markers only addition of NT-proBNP improved the C-statistic (0.67 (95%CI 0.61-0.74, p=0.023)). The categoryless net reclassification improvement for NT-proBNP was 39% (p=0.001), for a history of major CVD 27.2% (p=0.03) and for homocysteine 24.7% (p=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Among very old subjects with established CVD, NT-proBNP was the strongest risk marker for cardiovascular events and cardiovascular mortality. When estimating risk in secondary prevention in very old age, use of NT-proBNP should be considered.

Prognostic value of cardiovascular disease status: the Leiden 85-plus study.

This study aimed to explore the prognosis of very old people depending on their cardiovascular disease (CVD) history. This observational prospective cohort study included 570 participants aged 85 years from the general population with 5-year follow-up for morbidity, functional status, and mortality. At baseline, participants were assigned to three groups: no CVD history, "minor" CVD (angina pectoris, transient ischemic attack, intermittent claudication, and/or heart failure), or "major" CVD (myocardial infarction [MI], stroke, and/or arterial surgery). Follow-up data were collected on MI, stroke, functional status, and cause-specific mortality. The composite endpoint included cardiovascular events (MI or stroke) and cardiovascular mortality. At baseline, 270 (47.4 %) participants had no CVD history, 128 (22.4 %) had minor CVD, and 172 (30.2 %) had major CVD. Compared to the no CVD history group, the risk of the composite endpoint increased from 1.6 (95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.4) for the minor CVD group to 2.7 (95 % CI, 2.0-3.9) for the major CVD group. Similar trends were observed for cardiovascular and all-cause mortality risks. In a direct comparison, the major CVD group had a nearly doubled risk of the composite endpoint (hazard ratio, 1.8; 95 % CI, 1.2-2.7), compared to the minor CVD group. Both minor and major CVD were associated with an accelerated decline in cognitive function and accelerated increase of disability score (all p < 0.05), albeit most pronounced in participants with major CVD. CVD disease status in very old age is still of important prognostic value: a history of major CVD (mainly MI or stroke) leads to a nearly doubled risk of poor outcome, including cardiovascular events, functional decline, and mortality, compared with a history of minor CVD.